Grossman's argument is carefully researched and methodically laid out. He begins by filling in some historical details, discussing the statistics for shots fired per soldier killed for the World Wars and the American Civil War. It's a refreshing and enlightening look at war that dispels a lot of misconceptions. An average solder in those wars was extremely reluctant to take arms against fellow humans, even in cases where his own life (or the lives of his companions) was threatened. Not to say that any of these people are cowards; in fact, many would engage in brave acts such as rescuing their comrades from behind enemy lines or standing in harm's way while helping a fellow to reload. But the ability to stare down the length of a gun barrel and make a conscious effort to end a life is a quality that is happily rare.

The book continues on then, detailing what steps the US Army took to increase the percentage that they could get to actually fire upon their enemy. By studying precisely what the soldier's ordinary reactions were, the officers were able to change the scenario of war in order to avoid the most stressful of situations. The soldier found up-close killing to be abhorrent, so the emphasis was countered by inserting machinery (preferably one manned by multiple soldiers) between the killer and the enemy to increase the physical and emotional distance. Every effort is made to dehumanize the act of killing.

Grossman spends a great deal of time discussing the trauma that the solder who kills faces when he returns to civilian life. Nowhere is this more apparent than in those veterans who returned from Vietnam. Those soldiers had been psychologically trained to kill in a way that no previous army had gone through, and there was no counteragent working to heal their psychological wounds. Grossman takes great pains to discuss how horrifying the act of killing is, and points out how detrimental it is to one's mental health. When the Vietnam veterans returned home to no counseling and the spit and bile of anti-war protestors, the emotional effect was astounding. Most of Grossman's thesis is supported by in-depth interviews and psychological profiles, but it is the story of the Vietnam veterans that comes across as the most disturbing.

Much of the chatter about this book seems to revolve around the final section, the discussion about our own civilian society. While this is understandable, I actually preferred reading the earlier portions, simply because they opened my eyes to a lot about the military that I had been previously ignorant of. I think it would be a mistake to concentrate solely on the argument's conclusion as it rests heavily on the case that has been building. In any event, the book eventually develops its final conclusion: the methods that the military uses to desensitize its soldiers to killing are also being used in our media, but without the proper command structure that keeps people from killing indiscriminately. In a military situation, firing a weapon without proper authorization or instruction is a very serious offense, and this is drilled into the mind at the same time as the desensitization. Without this safety, there is nothing to hold back the killing instinct, and this is one of the main reasons why the homicide rate has increased so dramatically.

Now, I'll say right off the bat that I was partial to this line of argument before I read the book; I think that children repeatedly exposed to such images would almost certainly become blase towards extreme violence. But Grossman's book gave me so much more to think about. It isn't just a Pavlovian force at work here; Grossman points out many reasons (both stemming from society and the changing family structure) for why young people of today seem much more able to kill than their parents and grandparents were.

I was honestly surprised at how strong of a writer Grossman is. He manages to put forth his argument without boring the reader. By its very nature, a lot of what he discusses is repetitive and disturbing, but the subject matter is so compelling that I didn't mind. Grossman is very logical in his approach and his argument is a powerful one. I highly recommend this book, especially for people like myself who have never experienced war at close quarters. The summary I (and others here) have given is simply not nearly adequate to capture all of Grossman's thorough contentions. ON KILLING made me think harder about a subject that I hadn't given a lot of thought too before. The information and research here is invaluable.


A Powerful Refutation of the Soldier's Bloodlust   February 11, 2000
 82 out of 94 found this review helpful

Those who have never had the privilege of serving in America's armed forces invariably believe the Hollywood depiction of the modern soldier as a soulless killing machine. As Lt. Col. Dave Grossman shows in his groundbreaking study of killing in war, nothing could be further from the truth.

Remember the steely-eyed warriors who descended on Normandy, Anzio, Guadalcanal, and a host of other blood-soaked battlegrounds during World War II? Only one in five of these combat infantrymen were willing to fire their rifles.

Shocking? Surely, given the popular depiction of our fighting men. But military training has never been able to fully eradicate the innate resistance of killing one's fellow man amongst the common soldiery.

Yet we're getting better at it, with disturbing implications for our society. Grossman's data shows that the current crop of soldiers, raised on graphic violence in movies and video games, is much more willing to slay the enemy. This is undoubtedly a good thing from a purely military point of view. However, the cost is a consequent desensitization to the suffering of friend and foe alike, and psychological trauma which lasts long after the firing stops.

The introduction of women into combat situations has not slowed the inexorable trend toward a more savage soldier. During training to endure potential captivity as prisoners of war, male soldiers are taught to conquer their natural tendencies to protect females through an active desensitization process (a soldier is a soldier, whether male or female; we all signed up for this, etc.) What impact this has once these brave men return to society is uncertain, but you can bet that one cannot turn their humanity on and off like a light switch.

A profound and disturbing study which belongs in every library.


An insightful, ground-breaking study on why man kills man   May 21, 1999
 39 out of 41 found this review helpful

Dave Grossman has written perhaps one of the most insightful books on what motivates men in combat since S.LA. Marshall's "Men Against Fire". Grossman combines the thoroughness of an learned psychologist with the practical viewpoint of a lifetime dedicated to military service. He provides us with a unique and truly fascinating look into the dark and often terribly painful mental process that brings a man to pull the trigger and kill his fellow man. As an officer in the Army, I consider this book an essential read for anyone who may someday bear the burden of leading men in combat. We often get such a distorted view of remorseless killing from the popular media that most of us are shocked to discover that the act of killing a man at close range is something that very few soldiers are capable of. In a similar fashion to S.L.A. Marshall, Grossman demonstrates with overwhelming evidence how the vast majority of soldiers are tremendously reluctant to kill, frequently prefering to risk their own death instead. The book offers such a profound and important perspective on the nature of warfare at the human level that I suspect it will some day be part a curriculum for training officers and non-commissioned officers on combat leadership. Although the book's primary focus is on the nature of killing in warfare, his conclusions have relevance for anyone concerned with the problem of violence in society. One of Grossman's most useful conclusions is the suggestion that virtual reality video games allow their users to overcome the natural reluctance to kill by gradually desensitizing the mind to violence. This erosion then makes it easier for those who are pre-disposed to aggressive violence to act on their desires in a violent way. With the recent string of high school shootings, Grossman's hypothesis has immediate relevance to current social issues. In fact, he has been a frequent commentator on these tragedies with several national news networks. In summary, Grossman's book peers cautiously into the darker side of man's nature to understand what drives him to kill in combat. What he finds there is vastly different from what we are taught to expect- simply that the vast majority of people are unable to look a fellow man in the eye and kill him even if his own life may be at stake. The forces that allow him to overcome that reluctance in the heat of battle include peer pressure, leadership, training, and physical distance and are examined in great detail.


Invalid Thesis   July 20, 2001
 33 out of 71 found this review helpful

The problem I have with this book, is the author's thesis that human beings have an inborn, biological resistance to killing other human beings, that is supposedly located in the forebrain. I remain unconvenced. The author uses examples from modern christianized america, and the disproven theories of Freud to justify his blanket statement. His thesis is way too general. All his research proves is that modern christianized human beings have an inborn resistance to killing humans FOR THE WRONG REASONS. The author clearly has never read the book, "Scalp Dance." If he had he would be hard pressed to fit the native americans documented actions into his theory, because it won't fit. They hacked up their victims, men, woman, and children into little pieces. No guilt. They held murder as a virtue. And what, they don't have a forebrain? Going even further back in time, to groups untouched by 'thou shall not kill' religions, we have the Huns, and the Vikings. There are numerous accounts of viking raids, where men, woman, and children are hacked to death, up close and personal with apparently no resulting guilt, because they went out and did it again and again. I believe modern religions have a huge impact on people's ability to kill. It causes them to feel guilty. Christianity says that all human life is sacred and created by God. If someone held that belief then, yes it would be hard to kill. But to the above mentioned groups who held no such belief, it was not hard to kill. They say killing as a fact of a hard life. Thus there is no INBORN resistance to killing at all. Merely a learned guilt. Ever heard the saying 'your a barbarian, a savage.' What happened between the barbarian age and now? Christianity is what happened. The author spends alot of time interviewing people who have killed for the wrong reasons, and should feel guilty. Murder by definition is an unjustified killing. How was anyone justified by killing in any of the major wars? In none of the wars was our National Security at risk. They were forced to kill not for our Nation, like they thought they were doing, but for the some other nation, for someone elses interests. The soldiers of WWI, WWII, and Vietnam experienced guilt because they killed people for politicians, not to protect their country. This is what caused the psychiatric casualties of WWI, WWII, and Vietnam. I am absolutely certain that killing for the right reasons produces no psychiatric casualties. Thus, humans do not have an inate resistance, to all killing, just killing for the wrong reasons. What constitutes killing for the right reasons, and the wrong reasons is entirely in someone's mind. Some would say there is no right reason to kill and they would suffer psychiatric problems if they killed for any reasons, others would kill in defense of their children, country ect. and would suffer no psychiatric problems. Period. I am amazed that his theory is swallowed whole and not critized, seeing that it is taught at major universities. There are major holes in it. The author should interview vigilantes, or parents who have tracked down their childrens killers and killed them. I can assure they have no problems sleeping at night. What about the relatives of Oklahoma City Bombing victims, they flew over to Indiana to watch Timothy McVeigh be killed, because they felt it was just. They need to see him die, to feel at peace. Watching him die made them sleep better at night. It was theraputic. The opposite of what Vietnam vets experienced, because again, it's the difference between just and unjust killings. Clearly, the author needs to refine his theory. If the facts disagree with the theory, then get yourself a new theory.


Similarities of Soldiering and Selling   December 14, 1998
 25 out of 32 found this review helpful

I read this book and I review it here not because of any particular interest in sanctioned killing, rather because of my interest in institutional means of getting people to do difficult yet important tasks. I train salespeople and other business leaders.

I first heard the author, Dave Grossman, on a radio interview promoting this book. I heard him say that that in the history of combat from Alexander the Great through World War II only about 15% of soldiers in battle were trying to kill the enemy. He's not talking about the long administrative and logistical tail of the army. Only 15-20% of the people with guns or swords in their hands, facing an enemy trying to harm them, were willing to kill that enemy. I know this is hard to believe. I first heard this statistic from a pacifist and I called him a liar. Then I heard it from this author, a former US Army Colonel and military historian, who references the research of the US Army's official W.W.II historian as well as many other scholars.

Once one accepts this fact, two questions immediately present themselves: "Why?" and "What to do about it?" The first question is easy: most humans have a deep and strong taboo against looking a person in the face and destroying them. Many would literally rather die than cross that line. The second question is more complex and hugely interesting.

Clearly, if only 15% of the assets you have expensively brought to face an enemy are performing, your army has a major problem. The US Army raised this traditional firing rate from 15% up to 50% between W.W.II and the Korean conflict and again to better than 95% in Vietnam and Desert Storm. The British similarly increased their firing rate, to devastating effect in the Falklands against Argentines still performing at traditional levels. All modern militaries have since solved the problem. How?

The low firing rates have been cured by the new ways modern militaries train and lead soldiers. This is where my interest as a trainer of business leaders and salespeople is piqued. I have long noted that the biggest problem with most sales people is that they will not do the uncomfortable or unfamiliar things necessary to make more sales faster. It is not a knowledge problem, it is a performance problem. I figured that if the Army could get most ordinary men to pull the trigger, similar methods ought to get most typical salespeople to dial the telephone.

Grossman reports five factors which influence (determine?) the likelihood of a person to kill: Predisposition of Killer, Attractiveness of Target, Distance from Target, Group Absolution, and Demands of Authority

Many of these factors were well understood and widely practiced in the days of 15% firing ratios. This may be how armies got beyond relying on the 2% of the population willing to kill in combat without dramatic prompting or remorse. A huge gap in combat performance remained because, "When people become angry, or frightened, they stop thinking with their forebrain (the mind of a human being) and start thinking with their midbrain (which is indistinguishable from the mind of an animal). They are literally "scared out of their wits." The only thing that has any hope of influencing the midbrain is also the only thing that influences a dog: classical and operant conditioning." [p. xviii] The big change came when the US Army began, perhaps unintentionally, to incorporate the behaviors demonstrated by Pavlov and B. F. Skinner and made training much more realistic, repetitive, and rewarding.

"World War II-era training was conducted on a grassy firing range..., on which the soldier shot at a bull's-eye target. After he fired a series of shots the target was checked, and he was then given feedback that told him where he hit.

"Modern training ... comes as close to simulating actual combat conditions as possible. The soldier stands in a foxhole with full combat equipment, and man-shaped targets pop up briefly in front of him. These are the eliciting stimuli that prompt the target behavior of shooting. If the target is hit, it immediately drops, thus providing immediate feedback. Positive reinforcement is given when these hits are exchanged for marksmanship badges... Traditional marksmanship training has been transformed into a combat simulator." [p. 177]

And the citizen soldier has been transformed into a reliable killing machine: "When I went to boot camp and did individual combat training they said if you walk into an ambush what you want to do is just do a right face - you just turn right or left, whichever way the fire is corning from, and assault. I said, 'Man, that's crazy. I'd never do anything like that. It's stupid.' The first time we came under fire, ... in Laos, we did it automatically. Just like you look at your watch to see what time it is. We done a right face, assaulted the hill -- a fortified position with concrete bunkers emplaced, machine guns, automatic weapons -- and we took it. And we killed - I'd estimate probably thirty-five North Vietnamese soldiers in the assault, and we only lost three killed." [p. 317]

Contrast that with the report of a commander in W.W. II: "Squad leaders and platoon sergeants had to move up and down the firing line kicking men to get them to fire. We felt like we were doing good to get two or three men out of a squad to fire." [p. xiv] Sounds a lot like what I hear from sales managers. Perhaps because salespeople, like soldiers, find they must transgress strong taboos to be successful, for example, intruding on strangers, talking about money, and persisting past, "No," to name only three. The salesperson's taboos are clearly of a lesser import than the soldier's, yet the parallel is strong. Both the soldier and the salesperson suffer when they fail to transcend taboos, even though ignoring them is crucial to success and permission has been granted.

Redesigning a salesperson's training to take advantage of these well demonstrated methods of behavior modification can have a similarly spectacular effect. Another key to enhanced salesperson performance evident from Grossman's work is the value of on-the-job group dynamics. "Numerous studies have concluded that men in combat are usually motivated to fight not by ideology or hate or fear, but by group pressures and processes involving (1) regard for their comrades, (2) respect for their leaders, (3) concern for their own reputation with both, and (4) an urge to contribute to the success of the group." [p. 89] Many sales organizations, by contrast, pit salespeople against each other and minimize the role of sales managers. It is a world of lone wolves, though teamwork and leadership are demonstrated multipliers of effectiveness. How much of a multiplier? Modern armies have faced similarly equipped, by traditionally trained enemies and killed 35 to 50 of their adversaries for each soldier lost. [p. 197] Salespeople trained, organized, and lead on this model can also expect order-of-magnitude improvements.